[gwnn]

Vampyr, on 2016-March-04, 06:36, said:

Chess is a very dissimilar game to bridge, but I wouldn't call it stupid. You may not like it, but lots of people find it fascinating.

He was being facetious.

[mycroft]

I reiterate, Multi is a horrible bid, and clearly -EV. However, it frees up two bids to be something. If you can make those sufficiently +EV, you win.

For me, I like 2♦ aggressive (wide-ranging) natural. In the words of Auken and Anderson, "I've tried all the different kinds of toothpaste, and gone back to natural."

Have not played Wilkosz, of course (given where I live). I also find it odd (given where I live) that there are treatments for 2M that require Multi to play sanely that are Mid-chart (2), but since Multi is Mid-chart (6)...

[chasetb]

mycroft, on 2016-March-04, 11:08, said:

I reiterate, Multi is a horrible bid, and clearly -EV. However, it frees up two bids to be something. If you can make those sufficiently +EV, you win.

For me, I like 2♦ aggressive (wide-ranging) natural. In the words of Auken and Anderson, "I've tried all the different kinds of toothpaste, and gone back to natural."

Have not played Wilkosz, of course (given where I live). I also find it odd (given where I live) that there are treatments for 2M that require Multi to play sanely that are Mid-chart (2), but since Multi is Mid-chart (6)...

Well, according to this semi-dated article, the weak only multi 2♦ is actually +EV, but when pared with Tartan Twos (if they actually meant Tartan) was -EV. Han made some valid points here, so I think over my 'Spring' Break I will look at the recent BBs and try to decide.

For what it's worth, in a standard system I would play Flannery as outlined by Steve here, more than anything because I detest Weak 2♦. Not because I think they are worthless, but because for some reason I NEVER get good results playing it as weak or playing against it as weak.

[Charlie Yu]

Vampyr, on 2016-March-04, 03:10, said:

Relying on opponents' unfamiliarity with a treatment is not the way most people prefer to play.

Being familiar with the game is part of skill.

And Wilkosz isn't even about abusing your unfamiliarity - it is more like fixing a hole in the system, having a catch all bid for hands that you really want to open but otherwise couldn't.

[Vampyr]

gwnn, on 2016-March-04, 07:39, said:

He was being facetious.

Maybe, maybe not. It was an entirely irrelevant comment, with seemingly no purpose but to take a dig at chess.

Charlie Yu, on 2016-March-05, 02:06, said:

Being familiar with the game is part of skill.

Yes, of course. And if you pick a method that is best, and the opponents are unfamiliar with it, fair enough. Although it is common courtesy to tell the opponents beforehand so they can agree on a defense (if the treatment is very uncommon where you live).

But choosing a method that you don't think is best except for the fact that opponents will not know how to defend is IMO sleazy.

[gwnn]

Vampyr, on 2016-March-05, 04:09, said:

Maybe, maybe not. It was an entirely irrelevant comment, with seemingly no purpose but to take a dig at chess.

Actually it was not a dig at chess at all, but at your point (as in chess there are a lot of players who choose methods/openings only because they are unfamiliar to other players, and chess is clearly not a silly game - so his point is, if a lot of chess players enjoy it, wouldn't it follow that many bridge players also would enjoy it?). I am trying to help you here. nullve likes short and cryptic posts and I managed to decypher this one (I don't really agree with it but that's another story).

[mgoetze]

gwnn, on 2016-March-05, 04:16, said:

I am trying to help you here.

But is Vampyr the one who needs the help in this case?

[Charlie Yu]

Vampyr, on 2016-March-05, 04:09, said:

But choosing a method that you don't think is best except for the fact that opponents will not know how to defend is IMO sleazy.

And they deserve it if they didn't attempt to learn the ways to defend it.

[gwnn]

Ok I see a pattern here, every time I post somewhere it becomes a meta discussion about meta discussions and at some point I will have to face the fact that I have something to do with this effect.

[Zelandakh]

gwnn, on 2016-March-05, 05:12, said:

Ok I see a pattern here, every time I post somewhere it becomes a meta discussion about meta discussions and at some point I will have to face the fact that I have something to do with this effect.

It's because you try to be helpful Csaba and through that have gotten into a pattern of feeding trolls. The "utilitarian sacrifice" thread is a great example of that. It is total rubbish, and you know it is total rubbish - the only saving grace is that it is at least self-contained. I am all for trying to pull the small group of "difficult" posters into the community but supporting posts like this one is not the way, especially when it represents part of a thread derail as here.

[nullve]

gwnn, on 2016-March-04, 07:39, said:

He was being facetious.

Yes, for the first time on BBF. Didn't mean to spark the Third World War, though.

[Jinksy]

eagles123, on 2016-March-01, 17:53, said:

Never mind the bollocks - the best use for 2d opening is...

This:
http://community.dur...ments/bacon.php